Todd Chrisley reveals what his fellow prisoners thought of his release — after taking a swipe at CNN
Reality star and convicted fraudster Todd Chrisley opened up about his emotional release from prison and the reaction of his fellow inmates — just moments after taking a swipe at CNN during a press conference Friday.
'When I left that day, there was only 317 men at our camp, but they were lined up shouting when I was walking out and they were saying 'Dont forget us, don't forget us' and my commitment is to them that I will never forget them,' Chrisley, 56, told reporters in Nashville alongside his daughter Savannah.
The reality star, who was released from federal prison on Wednesday night alongside his wife, Julie Chrisley, after President Trump announced plans to pardon the couple, emphasized systemic issues he witnessed firsthand at the FPC Pensacola lockup in Florida.
'Anyone who says it's a fair shake, it's not. I dealt with young African American males in the prison that I was in who were not treated the same. They were denied programming. They were denied access to certain things. I was not denied that, but we know why I wasn't denied,' Todd Chrisley said.
Chrisley, who was convicted with his wife of faking documents to obtain over $30 million in loans, and then dumping them by declaring bankruptcy, took a swipe at the left-wing media's portrayal of the case.
'You must be from CNN,' he mockingly responded to an unidentified reporter who asked if he felt any remorse over his conviction.
'You're placed in a position as a defendant to either bow down and kiss the ass of the DOJ and accept responsibility for things that you did not do in order to avoid a stronger sentence,' he said.
Todd and Julie Chrisley's fall from grace: The inside story
Todd Chrisley smiles in first public outing since Trump pardon
Todd Chrisley reveals extreme lengths he takes to 'outrun paparazzi' as he breaks cover with daughter Savannah after prison release
Todd Chrisley reveals what his fellow prisoners thought of his release — after taking a swipe at CNN
Inside 'shocked' Todd and Julie Chrisley's first night home after Trump pardons
The 'Chrisley Knows Best' star described his time in prison as eye-opening and vowed to continue advocacy efforts for inmates with his family.
'I will continue to fight for all the guys that I dealt with and that I was blessed to be with at FPC Pensacola. I will continue to expose the injustices that go on there and throughout the department and throughout the Bureau of Prisons,' he said.
Chrisley also reflected on the moment he first learned of his pardon, describing it as surreal. 'I had a staff member that came up to me and said, 'You've just been pardoned,' and I just looked at him, and he said, 'No really, you've been pardoned. It's in the news.'
Savannah also recounted the moment she learned her parents would be pardoned on the way to the grocery store.
'When I got the call, like I said, I was walking into the grocery store, and I stopped in the parking lot. I was like, what do I do?.. and so I sat in my car and had that phone conversation that's online with President Trump… Grayson [her brother] was with me and we're like, oh my god, it's happening, it's happening,' she said.
Todd Chrisley was freed after serving just over two years of his 12-year sentence. His 52-year-old wife was let out of FMC Lexington in Kentucky, where she had been serving out a seven-year prison term.
President Trump announced plans to pardon the reality TV couple on Tuesday and followed through Wednesday afternoon, telling their adult kids from the Oval Office that the sentences were 'pretty harsh treatment.''This should not have happened,' the president told 27-year-old Savannah by phone. 'They were given a pretty harsh treatment based on what I'm hearing.
'Your parents are going to be free and clean,' he added. 'I don't know them, but give them my regards and wish them a good life.'
The glamorous couple's daughter has been championing their case in conservative circles since their conviction, going so far as to speak at the Republican National Convention in 2024 to proclaim that they'd been 'persecuted by rogue prosecutors' for their conservative values.
Todd and Julie Chrisley – who celebrated their 29th wedding anniversary days ago on May 25 – haven't seen or spoken to each other since they reported for prison in 2023, Savannah said.
But once the family is settled back home, they're ready to jump back into television and have a Lifetime show waiting for them 'that will document all of these things,' Savannah revealed to reporters on Wednesday.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
20 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump DOJ investigating Biden-era pardons amid concerns over state of mind
President Donald Trump's Justice Department is reviewing the list of people that were granted pardons by former President Joe Biden, amid new concerns about his use of an AutoPen to automatically sign documents, as well as concerns about his state of mind in his final months in office. Fox News was told Tuesday that Justice Department Pardon Attorney Ed Martin is reviewing a list of Biden-era pardons granted by the president during his final weeks in office. It is unclear what individual pardons are being reviewed by Martin's office, though Reuters reported this week that the office is planning to look at the preemptive pardons that Biden granted to his son, Hunter Biden, as well as more than 35 death row inmates whose sentences were changed to life in prison during Biden's final days in office. DOJ officials did not respond to Fox News's requests for comments on the email or the exact nature of the review Biden Clemency Announcement Gets Mixed Reviews On Capitol Hill: 'Where's The Bar?' Former President Joe Biden used his final weeks as commander-in-chief to grant clemency and pardon more than 1,500 individuals, in what the White House described at the time as the largest single-day act of clemency by a U.S. president. Read On The Fox News App But critics took umbrage at the long list of names, noting that it included persons convicted of defrauding U.S. taxpayers of tens of millions of dollars. Many took aim at his use of preemptive pardons to family members and others in Biden's inner circle. This is a developing news story. Check back for article source: Trump DOJ investigating Biden-era pardons amid concerns over state of mind
Atlantic
34 minutes ago
- Atlantic
The GOP's New Medicaid Denialism
Congressional Republicans claim to have achieved something truly miraculous. Their One Big Beautiful Bill Act, they argue, would cut nearly $800 billion from Medicaid spending over 10 years without causing any Americans to lose health care—or, at least, without making anyone who loses health care worse off. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that, by imposing Medicaid work requirements, the bill would eventually increase the uninsured population by at least 8.6 million. At first, Republican officials tried to defend this outcome on the grounds that it would affect only lazy people who refuse to work. This is clearly untrue, however. As voluminous research literature shows, work requirements achieve savings by implementing burdensome paperwork obligations that mostly take Medicaid from eligible beneficiaries, not 25-year-old guys who prefer playing video games to getting a job. Perhaps for that reason, some Republicans in Washington are now making even more audacious claims. On CNN over the weekend, Office of Management and Budget Director Russell Vought insisted that 'no one will lose coverage as a result of this bill.' Likewise, Joni Ernst, a Republican senator from Iowa, recently told voters at a town hall, 'Everyone says that Medicaid is being cut, people are going to see their benefits cut; that's not true.' After one attendee shouted, 'People will die,' Ernst replied, 'We all are going to die,' and later doubled down on her comment on social media, attempting to equate concern that Medicaid cuts could harm people with believing in the tooth fairy. Officials such as Vought and Ernst have not provided a detailed explanation of their blithe assurances. But there is one center of conservative thought that has attempted to defend these claims: the Wall Street Journal editorial page. Last week, it published an editorial headlined 'The Medicaid Scare Campaign.' The thesis is that the Medicaid cuts would 'improve healthcare by expanding private insurance options, which provide better access and health outcomes than Medicaid.' This would be, as they say, huge if true: The GOP has found a way to give low-income Americans better health care while saving hundreds of billions in taxpayer money. The timing is even more remarkable, given that this wondrous solution has come along at precisely the moment when congressional Republicans are desperate for budget savings to partially offset the costs of a regressive and fiscally irresponsible tax cut. Sadly, a close reading of The Wall Street Journal 's editorial reveals that no such miracle is in the offing. Instead, the argument relies on a series of misunderstandings and non sequiturs to obscure the obvious fact that cutting Medicaid would make poor people sicker and more likely to die. Jonathan Chait: The cynical Republican plan to cut Medicaid The editorial begins by acknowledging a recent study's conclusion that Medicaid expansion under the Affordable Care Act reduced mortality by 2.5 percent among low-income American adults. This would imply that taking Medicaid away from people would cause many of them to die. Not so fast, the editorial insists: 'The 2.5% difference in mortality for low-income adults between the expansion and non-expansion states wasn't statistically significant when disabled adults were included.' The implication is that the lifesaving effect of the Medicaid expansion disappears if you include disabled adults. In fact, Bruce Meyer, a University of Chicago economist and a co-author of the study, told me that the reason the study excluded disabled adults is that they were already eligible for public health insurance before the expansion. The way to measure the effect of a change is to focus on the population that was treated to the change. So either the Wall Street Journal editorial board is misleading its audience intentionally or it does not understand statistics. (Decades of Journal editorials provide ample grounds for both explanations.) The editorial then suggests that Obamacare has not overcome other social factors that are causing people to die: 'What's clear is that the ObamaCare expansion hasn't reduced deaths among lower-income, able-bodied adults. U.S. life expectancy remains about the same as it was in 2014 owing largely to increased deaths among such adults from drug overdoses and chronic diseases.' This passage, like the previous one, is intended to sound like a claim that giving people access to medical care does not reduce their likelihood of suffering a premature death. But that is not really what it's saying. The editorial is merely noting that the drug epidemic and other factors worked against the effects of the Medicaid expansion. Presumably, if the government had started throwing people off their health insurance at the same time that the drug-overdose epidemic was surging, then life expectancy would have gotten even worse. The article goes on to explain that Medicaid reimburses doctors and hospitals at a lower rate than private insurance does. That is absolutely correct: In the United States, Medicaid is the cheapest existing way to give people access to medical care. The editorial laments that Medicaid recipients have worse outcomes than people on private insurance do. But the Republican plan isn't to put Medicaid recipients on private insurance, which would cost money. The plan is to take away even their extremely cheap insurance and leave them with nothing. (Well, not nothing: The editorial notes that the bill would double 'the health-savings account contribution limit to $17,100 from $8,550 for families earning up to $150,000.' For reference, in most states, a four-person household must earn less than $45,000 a year to be eligible for Medicaid.) Finally, the editorial asserts, 'The GOP bill is unlikely to cause many Americans to lose Medicaid coverage.' Here is where I would analyze the editorial's support for this remarkable claim, but there is none. The sentence just floats by itself in a sea of text that bears no relationship to it. Indeed, the editorial doesn't even attempt to explain why the official Congressional Budget Office estimate is dramatically wrong. Nor does it engage with the mountain of evidence showing that people who obtain Medicaid coverage tend, naturally enough, to be better off as a result. The near-universal belief that being able to see a doctor and buy medicine makes you healthier is the kind of presumption that would take extraordinary evidence to refute. The Wall Street Journal editorial offers none at all. Advocates of the House bill have cultivated an aura of condescension toward anybody who states its plain implications. But even the most detailed attempt to substantiate their position consists entirely of deflections and half-truths. If this is the best case that can be made for worrying about the GOP's plan for Medicaid, then Americans should be worried indeed.
Yahoo
36 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Macron wax statue stolen from Paris museum for anti-Russian protest
Greenpeace activists took a statue of French President Emmanuel Macron and placed it outside the Russian embassy in Paris on Monday to protest continued business ties between the two countries, as well as Macron's climate policies. Activists said they 'borrowed' the statue of Macron from the Grévin Museum in central Paris, which contains waxworks of more than 200 public figures, at 10.30 a.m. local time (4.30 a.m. ET) Monday, according to a statement from Greenpeace. 'He does not deserve to be exhibited in this world-renowned cultural institution until he has terminated French contracts with Russia and initiated an ambitious and sustainable ecological transition across Europe,' reads the statement. The activists took the statue to the Russian embassy in the west of the French capital, where they placed it in front of banners decrying continued trade with Moscow in areas such as gas, nuclear power and chemical fertilizers. One person held a sign which read 'business is business' behind the statue, which depicts a smiling Macron clapping his hands. Another banner read 'Ukraine is burning, business goes on.' Despite pledging to end their reliance on Russian fuel, European nations have struggled to end imports of products such as liquified natural gas (LNG). According to research from the Centre for Research on Energy and Clean Air (CREA), France was the largest importer of Russian fossil fuels of any European Union country in January, with LNG imports totalling 377 million euros ($430 million). Greenpeace also criticized the continuation of nuclear fuel import contracts involving Russian nuclear agency Rosatom. 'Emmanuel Macron must abandon his nuclear revival. To persist on this path is to persist in a dangerous dependence on hostile regimes like Russia, and to continue financing the industry of a criminal regime,' said Roger Spautz, energy transition campaigner at Greenpeace France, in the statement. 'There is no sovereignty, no energy transition, and no peace possible with Vladimir Putin's uranium. It is time to put an end to this double standard and turn the page on nuclear power, once and for all.' In the statement, Greenpeace criticized what it called 'Macron's double-talk, which fails to do enough to end trade with Russia, even though he publicly displays strong support for Ukraine.' 'This ambiguous stance weakens France's credibility on the international stage and fuels the Kremlin's war chest,' it added. CNN has contacted Greenpeace for further details on where the statue is now and whether it will be returned to the museum. The Grévin Museum and Macron's office have been contacted for comment. CNN's Pierre Bairin contributed reporting.
